tete7000:


Bros I know more than you are trying to prove to know, I study a bit of philosophy. No archaic or insane content is in my religious law. You can calm your nerves.

You avoided my question. Answer it when you're ready.

kingxsamz:


@Bolded, YES!
A mother sucking cattarh off her child's nose to breath easily is considered good. Is it disgusting? Yes it is. Giving cpr and placing your mouth into a random strangers mouth to help them breath is good. Is it disgusting? YES.
So there you go.
And I called the act itself disgusting.
Same way I find eating feaces disgusting. Same way I find loudly eating with your mouth open disgusting. There are people who do these things. Are they wrong or right? I don't know and don't care. Will I discriminate people who do these things? Big No.
In conclusion, it's your life and I don't care.



Now to this.
I asked if it would be okay if the Christian god orders it, permits it or allows it. I didn't ask you if it was wrong or right. I asked you if you would consider any of those acts okay given the reasons.
So please give me a straightforward answer.

Can you marry a woman who sucks catarrh out from her child's nose? Yes
Did your mom suck your catarrh? Most likely yes...
Will you like to marry a woman who eats men's feaces? No
Will you like to marry a woman who engages in beastiality? No

So they aren't the same thing. You may call both disgusting, but you appreciate one and won't touch one with a long stick.

To your question...
It's impossible for my God to ask me to do those things... The bible even says that if an angel from heaven tells us something different, we shouldn't believe. So why should I nau even consider it. Some people could even take it as blasphemy to even consider what you're insinuating.

Namdio:

I hold the belief that, every analogy can be pushed to the limits. And I intend to stand by it.

People have Gods of forging, gods of wine, and the Japanese even have god of the toilet

Kawaya no Kami, kami of the toilet.

Goddess of learning and the arts
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sarasvati

So yes, skydiving could be a god to some people, anti-abortion campaigns to others, and playing under the rain to another group.

So, yes, I'm strange. And yes it made sense to me.

Well, at least you acknowledged the subjectivity of your ideology here. So thankfully, I have nothing to bicker about on this front.

Namdio:
Ah, I apologise. I have no ulterior motives, I guess I didn't understand that part of what you were saying. Thanks for the clarification.

You're welcome. And I accept your apology.

Namdio:
I think I need to clarify. The point of my argument wasn't that there exists another mechanism by which thunder and lightning forms. My point was that to empirically KNOW the cause of lightning for every case, you need to prove what you know in each case. Or else you believe that it does.

I appreciate the clarification, and I think I now have a firm grasp at what you're driving at here. However, I think you're having problems understanding semantics. Your application of the word "belief", especially in the context of the described scenario, is thoroughly misguided. Belief is commonly understood to mean the acceptance of certain thoughts and ideas WITHOUT proof. By definition, the word "belief" becomes irrelevant the moment evidence is presented to support a claim or idea. You are conflating belief with conviction, and are therefore guilty of committing a category error as the two words aren't entirely synonymous.

A conviction is commonly defined as a firmly held belief. Now, I know you'll be tempted to say "...but, Uche, we're still saying the same thing! Conviction is still a belief!", to which I'd respond and say that you are sorely mistaken. Belief, in colloquial terms, is essentially an opinion. A subjective truth, if you will. It doesn't necessarily rely on concrete information. Conviction does. It's why people allude to becoming convinced about certain things, because they have the relevant data to support it. So claiming that somebody still "believes" something is true even after prior encounters with a demonstration of the fact, is using the word "belief" in a careless manner.

Namdio:

So you may know that God exists at that point, but until you prove again that he/she/it does empirically exist you can only believe he/she/it does.

In light of my recent appraisal of your argument, I still stand by my original answer that I will not BELIEVE, even if you present me with empirical evidence that God exists. Except I'll correct the latter part of answer and say that I may only become CONVINCED that there is a God.

jasminer:

Can you marry a woman who sucks catarrh out from her child's nose? Yes
Did your mom suck your catarrh? Most likely yes...
Will you like to marry a woman who eats men's feaces? No
Will you like to marry a woman who engages in beastiality? No
So they aren't the same thing. You may call both disgusting, but you appreciate one and won't touch one with a long stick.

And that's totally fine. That's what we call choice and having preference. They're both disgusting but can still be liked by anyone. Everyone cannot like the same thing. I don't know what point you thought you were making. At least it has been established that something can be good and disgusting at the same time.

To your question...
It's impossible for my God to ask me to do those things... The bible even says that if an angel from heaven tells us something different, we shouldn't believe. So why should I nau even consider it. Some people could even take it as blasphemy to even consider what you're insinuating.

Eh, sorry o.
But in that same Bible, the Christian god ordered men to slaughter children and babies, he commanded men to carry out genocide, he asked men to capture lands, kill the non-virgin women and keep the Virgin girls for themselves (and you already know what that means), he accepted human sacrifice from a man, he gave instructions on how slaves should behave rather than condemning slavery. Finally, he allowed the world to be populated twice through incest. Through Adam and Eve, and through Noah's family after the flood.

So if the Christian god can allow, accept and carry out these acts, would you accept that it's okay if he orders anyone to it again? Answer.

cornelboy:


Lol. How did you know this, where are the evidences that some people before the invention of God and religion have moral principles?


So how those this prove that laws, rules and moral principles didn't begin with the supreme being or religion?



Lol. Your so funny.
Israel is a religious country and they are prospering. They are Islam states that are doing well.

US was quite a religious country and they were prospering.

Religion might not have anything to do with the prosperity of a country.

The religions commonly practised in Nigeria were even brought by the people in prospering countries.

And where does that leave your country Nigeria? Religion is highly practiced here. Why is violence and crime way worse here?
And which Supreme being are you talking about? Is it the Christian god that was created thousands of years after many civilizations that you're attributing the invention of morals to?

kingxsamz:


And that's totally fine. That's what we call choice and having preference. They're both disgusting but can still be liked by anyone. Everyone cannot like the same thing. I don't know what point you thought you were making. At least it has been established that something can be good and disgusting at the same time.



Eh, sorry o.
But in that same Bible, the Christian god ordered men to slaughter children and babies, he commanded men to carry out genocide, he asked men to capture lands, kill the non-virgin women and keep the Virgin girls for themselves (and you already know what that means), he accepted human sacrifice from a man, he gave instructions on how slaves should behave rather than condemning slavery. Finally, he allowed the world to be populated twice through incest. Through Adam and Eve, and through Noah's family after the flood.

So if the Christian god can allow, accept and carry out these acts, would you accept that it's okay if he orders anyone to it again? Answer.

That's hypocrisy not preference. You agree humans are animals and that we're free to act as we should but don't want to be associated with a certain form of freedom. I bet you'll spank your kids should you catch them engaging in such freedom as well. If you truly believe it's okay, you won't be bothered by your wife engaging in it even if you don't fancy it.

Lol, quit twisting the Bible and trying to sound clever.. Since you've read the bible, you must have come across where God gave man total freedom of choice. Complete freedom to choose. Based on this fact.
1. Adam and Eve weren't siblings, they were both created in the image of God and married to each other. Even at that, the original sin was sex, man was supposed to wait on God for guidance for reproduction first, the consequence for reproduction meaninglessly (though they were deceived by the serpent into doing it) was loss of immortality and death which is why the woman was specifically cursed with painful childbirth. God still forgave them and decided to overlook until violence and corruption erupted on earth. Then God decided to destroy the corrupted people and even animals in order to give human race another chance to get it right.

2. The sons of Noah were all married before the flood and they weren't married to their sisters. Otherwise where did the Giants like Goliath come from later?

3. God promised the Israelites that he will drive out the occupants from Canaan before them. Israelites chose to go to war as was the norm on earth in those days. God adviced them that in the path they had chosen, anyone left will be a thorn in their path so they'll have to totally wipe them out. Or what should God have adviced an army of people who have decided to go to war? Should he advice them to sacrifice themselves to their armies?
When they cried to God to save them from approaching enemies God saved them without them shooting a single arrow severally. When they come and inform God that they're going to war, God adviced them on the path they have chosen.

Men make decisions, inform God of their decisions and God tells them the outcome of their decisions, how is that God's fault? God never enforced his will on any man not even Adam NEVER!. So why is God taking the blame? The devil that instigated people to war nkor? You people don't see that one to blame.

4. God never asked anyone to perform human sacrifices to him so what proof do you have that he accepted human sacrifices from a man? The only man God asked to perform human sacrifice was Abraham and God stopped him before he struck a hair of the boy. Prove otherwise. If anyone performed human sacrifice and claimed it was to God, what proof does he have that God accepted it? So if anyone now performs human sacrifice and says it's to me, I'll be held responsible for it?

5. Again man enslaved man and you're blaming God? Parents sold their children into slavery and you're blaming God?
Should you also blame God for currency inflation and devaluation?
Did God ordain governments or currency or constitutions?
In the Bible it's stated that before God, there's neither bond nor free. In the Israel which was under Theocracy (when God ruled through prophets) slavery was not allowed. Israel chose to do away with theocracy and choose monarchy, God warned them of the consequence of monarchy which involved slavery and they accepted, then when the slavery started, he advised the slaves to obey their masters and the masters to be kind to their slaves. Or what should God have done?

God swore to NEVER interfer in man's decisions. He called heaven and earth as a witness that He has given man the right to choose. So everything happening on earth is a consequence of man's decisions. Leave God out of it.

First I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to have this discussion. It's not everyone who can speak with facts so we'll, and you have allowed me to view the things I believe through new eyes and offered me an opportunity to test my grasp on it.

uche40:



I appreciate the clarification, and I think I now have a firm grasp at what you're driving at here. However, I think you're having problems understanding semantics. Your application of the word "belief", especially in the context of the described scenario, is thoroughly misguided. Belief is commonly understood to mean the acceptance of certain thoughts and ideas WITHOUT proof. By definition, the word "belief" becomes irrelevant the moment evidence is presented to support a claim or idea. You are conflating belief with conviction, and are therefore guilty of committing a category error as the two words aren't entirely synonymous.

A conviction is commonly defined as a firmly held belief. Now, I know you'll be tempted to say "...but, Uche, we're still saying the same thing! Conviction is still a belief!", to which I'd respond and say that you are sorely mistaken. Belief, in colloquial terms, is essentially an opinion. A subjective truth, if you will. It doesn't necessarily rely on concrete information. Conviction does. It's why people allude to becoming convinced about certain things, because they have the relevant data to support it. So claiming that somebody still "believes" something is true even after prior encounters with a demonstration of the fact, is using the word "belief" in a careless manner.

Okay, so starting on the premise that you have given, we can say that you can believe something, even when there is no proof. This belief may not be firm and could change.

However, when one has evidence to support your belief, you don't stop believing. Rather your belief gets stronger, it becomes less malleable. It is not a swapping out of belief for conviction, it is a cementing of belief into conviction.

I agree with you, my use of the word belief was incorrect. But changing the word to conviction does not change the truth. Conviction is a strong belief, strong because there is evidence, but a belief none the less.

uche40:
In light of my recent appraisal of your argument, I still stand by my original answer that I will not BELIEVE, even if you present me with empirical evidence that God exists. Except I'll correct the latter part of answer and say that I may only become CONVINCED that there is a God.

To be convinced means to be completely certain. To be certain means to have no doubt. Doubt is defined as a lack of conviction. And, coming full circle now, conviction is a strong belief.

So you may become convinced (completely certain (having no doubt (lack of conviction(strong belief) that there is God.

So, You may be, completely having no lack of strong belief that there is God.

Or simplified.

You may be, completely having strong belief that there is God.

Meaning you believe, as a result of evidence, that God exists.

jasminer:



3. God promised the Israelites that he will drive out the occupants from Canaan before them. Israelites chose to go to war as was the norm on earth in those days. God advised them that in the path they had chosen, anyone left will be a thorn in their path so they'll have to totally wipe them out. Or what should God have advised an army of people who have decided to go to war? Should he advice them to sacrifice themselves to their armies?
When they cried to God to save them from approaching enemies God saved them without them shooting a single arrow severally. When they come and inform God that they're going to war, God advised them on the path they have chosen.

Thanks for this bit of insight, never saw it that way.

jasminer:


That's hypocrisy not preference. You agree humans are animals and that we're free to act as we should but don't want to be associated with a certain form of freedom. I bet you'll spank your kids should you catch them engaging in such freedom as well. If you truly believe it's okay, you won't be bothered by your wife engaging in it even if you don't fancy it.

Okay, now you're just throwing words. What does hypocrisy have to do with this?
So if I can marry someone who's performed CPR before, I must also be open to marry someone who eats feaces? is that how it works? What kind of logic is that and who made that a rule? And what kind of parent watches their kid have sex with a fellow human and keeps quiet, talk more of an animal?
Okay so because of freedom I should let my kids start having sex with humans at an early age? I'm not sure you're thinking your analogies through before typing them.
And I don't know why you're hell bent on me approving this beastiality. Someone says he finds it disgusting, you say no that he must accept it, all because he's an atheist? Like what's the connection? Na by force?

Lol, quit twisting the Bible and trying to sound clever.. Since you've read the bible, you must have come across where God gave man total freedom of choice. Complete freedom to choose. Based on this fact.

Lol, there's nothing to twist, everything I mentioned is all there in the bible and you can check them yourself. And it's obvious you don't know the book that much.
So I'll keep my responses as short as possible because you totally avoided my question.

1. Adam and Eve weren't siblings, they were both created in the image of God and married to each other. Even at that, the original sin was sex, man was supposed to wait on God for guidance for reproduction first, the consequence for reproduction meaninglessly (though they were deceived by the serpent into doing it) was loss of immortality and death which is why the woman was specifically cursed with painful childbirth. God still forgave them and decided to overlook until violence and corruption erupted on earth. Then God decided to destroy the corrupted people and even animals in order to give human race another chance to get it right.

I never said Adam and Eve were siblings. That's why I said think your thoughts through before typing them.
Adam and Eve had kids right?
So how did the world's population grow in number since the bible never mentioned that the Christian god created more humans?

2. The sons of Noah were all married before the flood and they weren't married to their sisters. Otherwise where did the Giants like Goliath come from later?

Lol, everyone and everything except Noah and his family were wiped out. If Noah's sons were married before the flood, doesn't that make the children of Noah's sons cousins? So how did Noah, his sons and grandchildren repopulate the earth if not through incest? Or you don't know what incest means? Think it through before responding.

3. God promised the Israelites that he will drive out the occupants from Canaan before them. Israelites chose to go to war as was the norm on earth in those days. God adviced them that in the path they had chosen, anyone left will be a thorn in their path so they'll have to totally wipe them out. Or what should God have adviced an army of people who have decided to go to war? Should he advice them to sacrifice themselves to their armies?
When they cried to God to save them from approaching enemies God saved them without them shooting a single arrow severally. When they come and inform God that they're going to war, God adviced them on the path they have chosen.

Men make decisions, inform God of their decisions and God tells them the outcome of their decisions, how is that God's fault? God never enforced his will on any man not even Adam NEVER!. So why is God taking the blame? The devil that instigated people to war nkor? You people don't see that one to blame.

Who this god was trying to save does not matter. The fact of the matter is that he instructed them to kill non virgin women and keep Virgin girls for themselves. Stop dodging and writing long stories.
Address that issue. The issue of giving men instructions to kill non virgin women and keep virgin girls for themselves. Address that in particular.

4. God never asked anyone to perform human sacrifices to him so what proof do you have that he accepted human sacrifices from a man? The only man God asked to perform human sacrifice was Abraham and God stopped him before he struck a hair of the boy. Prove otherwise. If anyone performed human sacrifice and claimed it was to God, what proof does he have that God accepted it? So if anyone now performs human sacrifice and says it's to me, I'll be held responsible for it?

I didn't say he "asked", I said he "accepted" a human sacrifice from a man.
The man promised the Christian god the sacrifice only if he helps him. And the Christian god went ahead to help him and accepted the sacrifice.
You don't even know about the story. Shows you don't know your Bible that much.

5. Again man enslaved man and you're blaming God? Parents sold their children into slavery and you're blaming God?
Should you also blame God for currency inflation and devaluation?
Did God ordain governments or currency or constitutions?
In the Bible it's stated that before God, there's neither bond nor free. In the Israel which was under Theocracy (when God ruled through prophets) slavery was not allowed. Israel chose to do away with theocracy and choose monarchy, God warned them of the consequence of monarchy which involved slavery and they accepted, then when the slavery started, he advised the slaves to obey their masters and the masters to be kind to their slaves. Or what should God have done?

God swore to NEVER interfer in man's decisions. He called heaven and earth as a witness that He has given man the right to choose. So everything happening on earth is a consequence of man's decisions. Leave God out of it.

Where in my write up did I blame the Christian god for slavery?
I said instead of condemning slavery and giving rules to abolish it, he endorsed it by giving slaves instructions on how to be more obedient. For example: It's like instead of the government to clamp down on rapists and make sure justice is served, they go ahead to give instructions to rape victims on how to be submissive.
In fact, the story you gave just shows your god bends to human rules. So if the monarchy involved raping women he would have given instructions to women on how not to resist and to rapists on how to go gentle on their victims? Lmao. I'm sure you can see how messed up that is.

Also, you avoided the part where I said the Christian god literally asked men to slaughter children and babies. Please address that and give a straightforward response since you already said infanticide is wrong, then we land back to my initial question of if you'd consider everything right as long as the Christian god orders it, allows it or permits it.

Namdio:


Thanks for this bit of insight, never saw it that way.

Lol, so it's okay to kill kids because it's "war"?
Ah, okay. But he/she told me earlier that it wasn't.

kingxsamz:

Okay, now you're just throwing words. What does hypocrisy have to do with this?
So if I can marry someone who's performed CPR before, I must also be open to marry someone who eats feaces? is that how it works? What kind of logic is that and who made that a rule? And what kind of parent watches their kid have sex with a fellow human and keeps quiet, talk more of an animal?
Okay so because of freedom I should let my kids start having sex with humans at an early age? I'm not sure you're thinking your analogies through before typing them.
And I don't know why you're hell bent on me approving this beastiality. Someone says he finds it disgusting, you say no that he must accept it, all because he's an atheist? Like what's the connection? Na by force?

Lol, there's nothing to twist, everything I mentioned is all there in the bible and you can check them yourself. And it's obvious you don't know the book that much.
So I'll keep my responses as short as possible because you totally avoided my question.



I never said Adam and Eve were siblings. That's why I said think your thoughts through before typing them.
Adam and Eve had kids right?
So how did the world's population grow in number since the bible never mentioned that the Christian god created more humans?


Lol, everyone and everything except Noah and his family were wiped out. If Noah's sons were married before the flood, doesn't that make the children of Noah's sons cousins? So how did Noah, his sons and grandchildren repopulate the earth if not through incest? Or you don't know what incest means? Think it through before responding.

Who this god was trying to save does not matter. The fact of the matter is that he instructed them to kill non virgin women and keep Virgin girls for themselves. Stop dodging and writing long stories.
Address that issue. The issue of giving men instructions to kill non virgin women and keep virgin girls for themselves. Address that in particular.


I didn't say he "asked", I said he "accepted" a human sacrifice from a man.
The man promised the Christian god the sacrifice only if he helps him. And the Christian god went ahead to help him and accepted the sacrifice.
You don't even know about the story. Shows you don't know your Bible that much.


Where in my write up did I blame the Christian god for slavery?
I said instead of condemning slavery and giving rules to abolish it, he endorsed it by giving slaves instructions on how to be more obedient. For example: It's like instead of the government to clamp down on rapists and make sure justice is served, they go ahead to give instructions to rape victims on how to be submissive.
In fact, the story you gave just shows your god bends to human rules. So if the monarchy involved raping women he would have given instructions to women on how not to resist and to rapists on how to go gentle on their victims? Lmao. I'm sure you can see how messed up that is.

Also, you avoided the part where I said the Christian god literally asked men to slaughter children and babies. Please address that and give a straightforward response since you already said infanticide is wrong, then we land back to my initial question of if you'd consider everything right as long as the Christian god orders it, allows it or permits it.

Atheism stands for freedom... Religion condemns... The thread is even about theist women who don't want to have anything to do with atheist men (kinda highlighting lack of tolerance from theists). I'm simply pointing out that such intolerance exists among you atheists as well. You defend tolerance, you defend human animal theory but won't tolerate people who engage in it. You're theist in your soul

To your questions:
1. Men chose to commit incest to increase the population, God never asked men to commit incest. If God created Eve for Adam, wasn't the same God able to create wives and husbands for the sons and daughters of Adam when the time is right? If their means of reproduction was approved by God, why did giants and wickedness erupt and why did God decide to wipe out all living except Noah and his family?

2. Again the descendants of Noah married their cousins not necessarily their siblings. Incest itself is the crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild. Cousins don't count as incest though it's recently avoided mainly for DNA deformation reasons. The late Queen Elizabeth married her cousin so what wrong did Noah's children commit?

3. Lol, an army was hoping to wipe out their entire enemies as was the norm in those days (something even our pagan ancestors did without any god telling them to). A widow will seek revenge over her husband's murder, a child will seek revenge over the murder of it's parents, a betrothed woman will seek revenge and harbor bitterness over the murder of her betrothed. A virgin woman will most likely be married to her captors not treated as a slave, will have children and will forget the past.
Perhaps God should have kept mute and allowed every single one to be killed?
God's crime now was attempting to save a set who really deserved a chance to live?
They were going to kill everybody wether God said so or not, that's how you seize land from indigenous people. Remember the massacre in South Africa by the whites? Remember the wiping out of the Red indians by the Americans and Canadians?
Even Fulani in Nigeria, didn't they wipe out villages and rename them? So if God said keep the virgins alive for yourself, that's not a crime?

4. Did God ask him to promise him a sacrifice? Did God answer anything when he promised the sacrifice? What was the sign from heaven when he sacrificed a human being in the name of the Lord? Even the bible says God has no delight in the death of a sinner. I bet the entire host of heaven shook their heads as he sacrificed his children claiming it was to God. If truly God accepted that sacrifice, where did God reward him for that action in the bible? Hannah gave Samuel to God, God gave her 6 sons, Satan killed Job's 10 children, God gave Job 20 children. Abraham attempted to kill him son for God because of that, God gave him an everlasting convenant. Solomon sacrificed animals, God made him the wisest. What was the reward for the human sacrifice?

5. God warned them about slavery and they accepted it, they have made a choice, God had to respect that choice. But when God made his mindset known about slavery, he revealed that there's nobody regarded as a slave before Him.
God said I set before you life and death, choose life that you may live. Man chose death, if God interfered in the choice of man, would we really have freedom of choice?
God told them that the kings will enforce slavery, taxes etc and they said it's good, why not leave God alone and blame the people who engaged in slavery itself.
What about the most recent black slavery of the 14th - 16th century, should we blame God as well for it? Or the buyer's and sellers of human beings?

6. God doesn't bend to human rules, he respects human decisions. The bible says that whatever Man allows on earth will be allowed in heaven. If man chooses violence on earth, God won't object
That is why we have to pray even though God knows what we need, but until you come or call to Him, He ain't gonna interfer in your life.

Whatever was the result of war is the fault of those who chose war. Infanticide, rape etc... God never planned for war, rape, murder etc on earth. All were results of man's decisions and God didn't interfer. Which is why he promised us a heaven where even the lions will eat grass, Nothing will destroy or cause violence in the new world he will build, violence and destruction was never His will for this world, only peace and fellowship with God. That's the true mind and will of God and because God never forces people to do his will, only people who have proved by their life on earth that they won't go to that new world and kill, corrupt, create chaos and violence will enter that world.

tete7000:


Bros I know more than you are trying to prove to know, I study a bit of philosophy. No archaic or insane content is in my religious law. You can calm your nerves.

But bible promotes genocide, slavery, murder. You might say those are Old Testament but nowhere in the New Testament did they condemn it

jasminer:


Atheism stands for freedom... Religion condemns... The thread is even about theist women who don't want to have anything to do with atheist men (kinda highlighting lack of tolerance from theists). I'm simply pointing out that such intolerance exists among you atheists as well. You defend tolerance, you defend human animal theory but won't tolerate people who engage in it. You're theist in your soul

To your questions:
1. Men chose to commit incest to increase the population, God never asked men to commit incest. If God created Eve for Adam, wasn't the same God able to create wives and husbands for the sons and daughters of Adam when the time is right? If their means of reproduction was approved by God, why did giants and wickedness erupt and why did God decide to wipe out all living except Noah and his family?

2. Again the descendants of Noah married their cousins not necessarily their siblings. Incest itself is the crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild. Cousins don't count as incest though it's recently avoided mainly for DNA deformation reasons. The late Queen Elizabeth married her cousin so what wrong did Noah's children commit?

3. Lol, an army was hoping to wipe out their entire enemies as was the norm in those days (something even our pagan ancestors did without any god telling them to). A widow will seek revenge over her husband's murder, a child will seek revenge over the murder of it's parents, a betrothed woman will seek revenge and harbor bitterness over the murder of her betrothed. A virgin woman will most likely be married to her captors not treated as a slave, will have children and will forget the past.
Perhaps God should have kept mute and allowed every single one to be killed?
God's crime now was attempting to save a set who really deserved a chance to live?
They were going to kill everybody wether God said so or not, that's how you seize land from indigenous people. Remember the massacre in South Africa by the whites? Remember the wiping out of the Red indians by the Americans and Canadians?
Even Fulani in Nigeria, didn't they wipe out villages and rename them? So if God said keep the virgins alive for yourself, that's not a crime?

4. Did God ask him to promise him a sacrifice? Did God answer anything when he promised the sacrifice? What was the sign from heaven when he sacrificed a human being in the name of the Lord? Even the bible says God has no delight in the death of a sinner. I bet the entire host of heaven shook their heads as he sacrificed his children claiming it was to God. If truly God accepted that sacrifice, where did God reward him for that action in the bible? Hannah gave Samuel to God, God gave her 6 sons, Satan killed Job's 10 children, God gave Job 20 children. Abraham attempted to kill him son for God because of that, God gave him an everlasting convenant. Solomon sacrificed animals, God made him the wisest. What was the reward for the human sacrifice?

5. God warned them about slavery and they accepted it, they have made a choice, God had to respect that choice. But when God made his mindset known about slavery, he revealed that there's nobody regarded as a slave before Him.
God said I set before you life and death, choose life that you may live. Man chose death, if God interfered in the choice of man, would we really have freedom of choice?
God told them that the kings will enforce slavery, taxes etc and they said it's good, why not leave God alone and blame the people who engaged in slavery itself.
What about the most recent black slavery of the 14th - 16th century, should we blame God as well for it? Or the buyer's and sellers of human beings?

6. God doesn't bend to human rules, he respects human decisions. The bible says that whatever Man allows on earth will be allowed in heaven. If man chooses violence on earth, God won't object
That is why we have to pray even though God knows what we need, but until you come or call to Him, He ain't gonna interfer in your life.

Whatever was the result of war is the fault of those who chose war. Infanticide, rape etc... God never planned for war, rape, murder etc on earth. All were results of man's decisions and God didn't interfer. Which is why he promised us a heaven where even the lions will eat grass, Nothing will destroy or cause violence in the new world he will build, violence and destruction was never His will for this world, only peace and fellowship with God. That's the true mind and will of God and because God never forces people to do his will, only people who have proved by their life on earth that they won't go to that new world and kill, corrupt, create chaos and violence will enter that world.

The only thing I’d like to counter here is that story of Job, how can God give devil permission to kill someone’s 10 devil and feel replacing them with 20 new ones makes up for it. No right thinking decent human should ever use the story of Job as an example.
People loose 1 child and are heartbroken, Imagine the trauma job would have passed through, the memories he had with those children. The love he had for them. And you just giving him new ones would make him forget the last. If you can argue in favor of God in this, then you aren’t a good person, cause you wouldn’t mind if God killed your beloved children (if you have) and just thinks he can replace them. Like human beings are property

suicidesheep:


The only thing I’d like to counter here is that story of Job, how can God give devil permission to kill someone’s 10 devil and feel replacing them with 20 new ones makes up for it. No right thinking decent human should ever use the story of Job as an example.
People loose 1 child and are heartbroken, Imagine the trauma job would have passed through, the memories he had with those children. The love he had for them. And you just giving him new ones would make him forget the last. If you can argue in favor of God in this, then you aren’t a good person, cause you wouldn’t mind if God killed your beloved children (if you have) and just thinks he can replace them. Like human beings are property

Show me where God gave the devil permission to kill Job's children.
God permitted Job's wealth to go, and even Job's health. Show me where God told the devil to kill Job's children.

kingxsamz:


Yes I'll make them, any problem?

Nobody can or needs to make them, that's the simple point so stop wishing around.

jasminer:


Show me where God gave the devil permission to kill Job's children.
God permitted Job's wealth to go, and even Job's health. Show me where God told the devil to kill Job's children.

Are you really asking that question?
Sometimes I wonder if you people actually read your Bible, devil asked for permission to test job, anything he did was under God’s permission. See you changing it to say he only asked to take away his wealth.

Why didn’t you say anything about the killing and replacing of children like they are property?

Namdio:
First I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to have this discussion. It's not everyone who can speak with facts so we'll, and you have allowed me to view the things I believe through new eyes and offered me an opportunity to test my grasp on it.

-snip-

It's been a pleasure. We may not agree on certain things, but I think this is the closest to a civil discussion I've had with a Christian (if you are) for a long time, where I'm actually able to learn new ideas. Your honesty and open-mindedness is a breath of fresh air.

As for the rest of your post, I completely see your point now, as well as some missteps in my own arguments. That being said, I'm afraid I still fail to see the relevance of saying "I believe in X...", even after empirical evidence for X's existence has been presented. Belief, in its base definition, is not a state of awareness predicated on objective information or facts. It is completely subjective, so I maintain that such an assertion is misleading.

There are facts that exist outside the confines of our subjectivity, and we use science to establish these facts. Once they are established, our subjective opinion becomes irrelevant to the discussion because facts are, by definition, the TRUE states of affairs. We CAN and often DO express facts with propositions. Beliefs are mindset-driven propositions -- our psychological "tinge" on propositions. The "tinge" (measure of belief) we place on a proposition for psychological reasons does not necessarily relate with whether the TRUE state of affairs actually exists. So, it's ludicrous to claim BELIEF in an empirical phenomenon.

Furthermore, you should note the difference between facts which are objective and facts which are contingent. All dogs are animals is an objective fact. The truth value is constant, given that the nature and features of a dog dictates that it can NOT be reclassified. However, starting up my car in the morning through the use of my car key is a contingent fact. It is true sometimes because I obviously need a car key to start up the engine. However, what if there's battery failure? Then the assertion becomes false, as the engine won't respond even after I use my car key.

I don't think the existence of God or gods as described by Christianity, is subject to chance (contingent). In my experience, Christians treat the existence of their God as a foregone conclusion, even going as far as to assume that atheists KNOW God exists but that atheists deny him wilfully -- and so it follows that if empirical evidence is presented that God exists, it will be empirical evidence proving an OBJECTIVE FACT. Therefore, it won't make any sense to claim "belief" in God, because once evidence is brought into the picture, my belief (subjective opinion) is rendered unimportant in light of the present data.

I hope you can understand my reasoning better now.

Image123:


Nobody can or needs to make them, that's the simple point so stop wishing around.

K.

suicidesheep:


Are you really asking that question?
Sometimes I wonder if you people actually read your Bible, devil asked for permission to test job, anything he did was under God’s permission. See you changing it to say he only asked to take away his wealth.

Why didn’t you say anything about the killing and replacing of children like they are property?

Lol... I know you didn't read Job for yourself, you simply heard the story from everyone else. I'll save you the stress.

Job 1 vs 18 - 21
And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?
Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.
But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.
And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

Where in this bible verses did you see Job's children in the discussion?
If Job's family members were included in all that Job hath, why didn't Satan kill Job's wife and all Job's servants? Why spare some and take some?
What about Job's relatives? Why weren't they killed too?

The permission to tempt was only on Job's wealth and later, on Job's health... Show me where else God ordered Satan to kill Job's children.

It's because of things like this God made hell for Satan but some people insist on following Satan to hell by behaving like him

jasminer:


Lol... I know you didn't read Job for yourself, you simply heard the story from everyone else. I'll save you the stress.

Job 1 vs 18 - 21
And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?
Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.
But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.
And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

Where in this bible verses did you see Job's children in the discussion?
If Job's family members were included in all that Job hath, why didn't Satan kill Job's wife and all Job's servants? Why spare some and take some?
What about Job's relatives? Why weren't they killed too?

The permission to tempt was only on Job's wealth and later, on Job's health... Show me where else God ordered Satan to kill Job's children.

It's because of things like this God made hell for Satan but some people insist on following Satan to hell by behaving like him

See the way you want to misquote bible because of agenda. Did God not push devil to it. Did God not also say it’s only Job he shouldn’t touch, instead of killing his wife, devil knew she would try to pursuade job against, didn’t she.

Omo, because it’s God at fault you’re changing it to devil acted in his own, even if why would a loving God think replacing full grown Children with new once’s will heal the trauma. It just goes to show you theist don’t think for yourself, you guys don’t even accept everything in the Bible. You just quote whatever pushes your agenda and avoid relevant criticism

suicidesheep:


See the way you want to misquote bible because of agenda. Did God not push devil to it. Did God not also say it’s only Job he shouldn’t touch, instead of killing his wife, devil knew she would try to pursuade job against, didn’t she.

Omo, because it’s God at fault you’re changing it to devil acted in his own, even if why would a loving God think replacing full grown Children with new once’s will heal the trauma. It just goes to show you theist don’t think for yourself, you guys don’t even accept everything in the Bible. You just quote whatever pushes your agenda and avoid relevant criticism

Since I'm misquoting the Bible, correctly quote it for me and please show me where God pushed or told the devil to kill Job's children

Feel free to quote it in any Bible version of your choice.

Lol ... Satan is now the saint that was pushed by God. May God have mercy!

suicidesheep:


But bible promotes genocide, slavery, murder. You might say those are Old Testament but nowhere in the New Testament did they condemn it

You are an atheist talking within the limit of your understanding. I have told you, leave bible and explain to me what codes atheism has to promote morality.

jasminer:


Atheism stands for freedom... Religion condemns... The thread is even about theist women who don't want to have anything to do with atheist men (kinda highlighting lack of tolerance from theists). I'm simply pointing out that such intolerance exists among you atheists as well. You defend tolerance, you defend human animal theory but won't tolerate people who engage in it. You're theist in your soul

Lol, just seeing this sef.
Again,Atheism stands for nothing. I've said that countless times. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Nothing more nothing less. It does not stand for freedom neither does it stand for captivity.
An atheist could support slavery, another atheist could be against it.
The Atheist who created this thread created it based on his experience and that has nothing to do with other atheists. Like I told you everyone has a choice. It's fine if Christians don't want to date Atheists, it's also fine if I don't want to have anything to do with someone who eats feaces. You seem not to understand these simple things. Atheism does not equate freedom. It stands for nothing and has no rules. SIMPLE. I don't give two bleeps about Christians not wanting atheists. Whining about it like the OP did is one just being a cry baby.

To your questions:
1. Men chose to commit incest to increase the population, God never asked men to commit incest. If God created Eve for Adam, wasn't the same God able to create wives and husbands for the sons and daughters of Adam when the time is right? If their means of reproduction was approved by God, why did giants and wickedness erupt and why did God decide to wipe out all living except Noah and his family?

Where in the bible was that stated?
Show me where the Christian god created wives for Adam and Eve's children.

2. Again the descendants of Noah married their cousins not necessarily their siblings. Incest itself is the crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild. Cousins don't count as incest though it's recently avoided mainly for DNA deformation reasons. The late Queen Elizabeth married her cousin so what wrong did Noah's children commit?

So is it okay to marry your cousins? Yes or no?
Give me a direct answer.

3. Lol, an army was hoping to wipe out their entire enemies as was the norm in those days (something even our pagan ancestors did without any god telling them to). A widow will seek revenge over her husband's murder, a child will seek revenge over the murder of it's parents, a betrothed woman will seek revenge and harbor bitterness over the murder of her betrothed. A virgin woman will most likely be married to her captors not treated as a slave, will have children and will forget the past.
Perhaps God should have kept mute and allowed every single one to be killed?
God's crime now was attempting to save a set who really deserved a chance to live?
They were going to kill everybody wether God said so or not, that's how you seize land from indigenous people. Remember the massacre in South Africa by the whites? Remember the wiping out of the Red indians by the Americans and Canadians?
Even Fulani in Nigeria, didn't they wipe out villages and rename them? So if God said keep the virgins alive for yourself, that's not a crime?

You keep avoiding my points.
The issue isn't about what was the norm back then, the issue is about this god giving men instructions to slaughter women who have been disvirgined and keeping those who are virgins for themselves.
You do know that quite a large number of little girls were married off to sick men right?
So if a god can instruct men to keep children for themselves for their sexual pleasure, what does that make him?
Abeg answer.

4. Did God ask him to promise him a sacrifice? Did God answer anything when he promised the sacrifice? What was the sign from heaven when he sacrificed a human being in the name of the Lord? Even the bible says God has no delight in the death of a sinner. I bet the entire host of heaven shook their heads as he sacrificed his children claiming it was to God. If truly God accepted that sacrifice, where did God reward him for that action in the bible? Hannah gave Samuel to God, God gave her 6 sons, Satan killed Job's 10 children, God gave Job 20 children. Abraham attempted to kill him son for God because of that, God gave him an everlasting convenant. Solomon sacrificed animals, God made him the wisest. What was the reward for the human sacrifice?

He asked the Christian god for a favour in return of human sacrifice. The Christian god helped him with the favour. Then this man went ahead to make the sacrifice which the Christian god accepted.
If someone asks you for 1 million naira in return of a human head and you go ahead to help him, what does that make you? An accomplice.
If police come, no be two of una dem go carry?

5. God warned them about slavery and they accepted it, they have made a choice, God had to respect that choice. But when God made his mindset known about slavery, he revealed that there's nobody regarded as a slave before Him.
God said I set before you life and death, choose life that you may live. Man chose death, if God interfered in the choice of man, would we really have freedom of choice?
God told them that the kings will enforce slavery, taxes etc and they said it's good, why not leave God alone and blame the people who engaged in slavery itself.
What about the most recent black slavery of the 14th - 16th century, should we blame God as well for it? Or the buyer's and sellers of human beings?

You make comprehension too hard for yourself.
If the government should warn Nigerian soldiers about rape and these soldiers go ahead to rape. What would it mean if the government then decides to give women rules on how to be submissive to rapists instead of punishing and condemning those soldiers who rape?
You warned someone of an action, they went ahead to do that action, now instead of you to condemn the action, you went ahead to make rules to make that action more prevalent.
When you give rules to slaves rather than abolishing slavery, it means you're in support of slavery. Simple as that.

6. God doesn't bend to human rules, he respects human decisions. The bible says that whatever Man allows on earth will be allowed in heaven. If man chooses violence on earth, God won't object
That is why we have to pray even though God knows what we need, but until you come or call to Him, He ain't gonna interfer in your life.

Wrong!
You don't even know your Bible.
Why didn't he respect Pharaoh's decision to free the Israelites rather than forcefully making him stubborn? Why didn't he respect the decision of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah? You no even sabi the book wey you dey read sef.

Whatever was the result of war is the fault of those who chose war. Infanticide, rape etc... God never planned for war, rape, murder etc on earth. All were results of man's decisions and God didn't interfer. Which is why he promised us a heaven where even the lions will eat grass, Nothing will destroy or cause violence in the new world he will build, violence and destruction was never His will for this world, only peace and fellowship with God. That's the true mind and will of God and because God never forces people to do his will, only people who have proved by their life on earth that they won't go to that new world and kill, corrupt, create chaos and violence will enter that world.

If you like avoid am ten times, I'll always repeat it.
The Christian god specifically gave men instructions to murder children and babies. The verse clearly says it. You can't hide from it.
This was not any man's decision. He asked them, he ordered them, he commanded them to kill children and babies.
No matter how much you avoid this particular one, I'll always remind you.
Since you said infanticide is wrong, tell us, why is it right for a good god to command men to slaughter children and babies? Then tell us if it'll be okay if he does it again.
Avoid this one again and I'll remind you.
I await your response.

suicidesheep:


Are you really asking that question?
Sometimes I wonder if you people actually read your Bible, devil asked for permission to test job, anything he did was under God’s permission. See you changing it to say he only asked to take away his wealth.

Why didn’t you say anything about the killing and replacing of children like they are property?

Lol, these people know what they're doing. If this same thing was done by their fellow human, they would condemn that person and ask for his head.
How can you ask one of the most vicious and dangerous beings to do what ever it wants with your own child?
It's like asking a cultist to mess your child up. I'm sure anyone who has sense can see how terrible that is.

uche40:


I hope you can understand my reasoning better now.

Yeah, I can definitely see where you're coming from, and while I could pick up another part of this post and argue about, I feel it has run it's beautiful course and should be ended with the following.

Under the examination lights
We have each kept our own
So now, let us agree
To disagree

kingxsamz:


You keep avoiding my points.
The issue isn't about what was the norm back then, the issue is about this god giving men instructions to slaughter women who have been disvirgined and keeping those who are virgins for themselves.
You do know that quite a large number of little girls were married off to sick men right?
So if a god can instruct men to keep children for themselves for their sexual pleasure, what does that make him?
Abeg answer.

So I've been trying to avoid answering because you don't argue intelligently and with hard facts.

Number 31: 18 is the scripture I'm sure yoú are referencing, and yes, I agree, the children of Israel were instructed to keep the virgin girls for themselves.

https://biblehub.com/numbers/31-18.htm

Now the next question is who asked them to.

Going back to verse 14, you can see that it was in fact Moses, not God, who asked them to keep the young virgin girls for themselves.

https://biblehub.com/numbers/31-14.htm

Now what was God's original instruction?

God asked them to take revenge on the Midianites because of what they had done to them.

https://biblehub.com/cev/numbers/31.htm

This was the only thing God said. It was Moses who took over from there.

kingxsamz:

...him stubborn? Why didn't he respect the decision of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah? You no even sabi the book wey you dey read sef.

When was it explicitly stated that Pharaoh wanted to release the children of Israel?

Where is your proof?

As for Sodom and Gomorrah, they were a scourge on humanity, if God hadn't done it, somebody else would have.

They were unrepentantly evil. Imagine if someone entered your town for the first time and the first thing the whole town wants to do is have sex with them, and it was audibly announced.

(Edit:
https://biblehub.com/genesis/19-5.htm

Read down to 10)

In your own words

If you knew someone would always kill or rape anyone he immediately met, would you kill him?
Answer me directly

Namdio:


So I've been trying to avoid answering because you don't argue intelligently and with hard facts.

You should have stopped here then instead of quoting me. Maybe when you keep emotions and the urge to defend your beliefs aside then you can start seeing the "intelligence and facts".

Number 31: 18 is the scripture I'm sure yoú are referencing, and yes, I agree, the children of Israel were instructed to keep the virgin girls for themselves.

https://biblehub.com/numbers/31-18.htm

Now the next question is who asked them to.

Going back to verse 14, you can see that it was in fact Moses, not God, who asked them to keep the young virgin girls for themselves.

https://biblehub.com/numbers/31-14.htm

Now what was God's original instruction?

God asked them to take revenge on the Midianites because of what they had done to them.

https://biblehub.com/cev/numbers/31.htm

This was the only thing God said. It was Moses who took over from there.

Wasn't Moses this god's messenger?
Where in that story did the Christian god condemn Moses for his utterance? Why overlook it? And even if we want to excuse that part and and say he didn't know, how about the part where he specifically asked men to murder children and babies?
How about that?

Namdio:


When was it explicitly stated that Pharaoh wanted to release the children of Israel?

Where is your proof?

He was remorseful and acknowledged that he had sinned and the verse clearly stated that his heart was hardened so as to prevent him from setting them free.

As for Sodom and Gomorrah, they were a scourge on humanity, if God hadn't done it, somebody else would have.

They were unrepentantly evil. Imagine if someone entered your town for the first time and the first thing the whole town wants to do is have sex with them, and it was audibly announced.

In your own words

If you knew someone would always kill or rape anyone he immediately met, would you kill him?
Answer me directly

_ Yes I'll do my best to stop them, why not? Maybe not kill but anyway possible.

The bible says that whatever Man allows on earth will be allowed in heaven. If man chooses violence on earth, God won't object

Your colleague up there said this, you should be asking him or her that question. Or did they lie about what the Bible said?

Namdio:
If you knew someone would always kill or rape anyone he immediately met, would you kill him?

_well...

God warned them about slavery and they accepted it, they have made a choice, God had to respect that choice.

This was what your colleague also said. Are they lying? If the Christian god can respect people's choice to enslave other people, then he can also respect people's choice to rape and kill.
Abi no be so?
Lol, I'm loving the contradictions.

kingxsamz:


You should have stopped here then instead of quoting me. Maybe when you keep emotions and the urge to defend your beliefs aside then you can start seeing the "intelligence and facts".

With the basis of all our facts here being the bible after all these are bible stories, it seems that you are the one without facts.

kingxsamz:

Wasn't Moses this god's messenger?
Where in that story did the Christian god condemn Moses for his utterance? Why overlook it? And even if we want to excuse that part and and say he didn't know, how about the part where he specifically asked men to murder children and babies?
How about that?

Since when did the master and the messenger become confused?

What the master says and what the servant does are 2 different things.

The order to kill all the women and children was by Moses, mind you and not God. You keep overlooking that.

kingxsamz:

He was remorseful and acknowledged that he had sinned and the verse clearly stated that his heart was hardened so as to prevent him from setting them free.

Link me to this bible verse please, let me also know what you know.

kingxsamz:

_ Yes I'll do my best to stop them, why not? Maybe not kill but anyway possible.

So what problem do you have with what God did?

kingxsamz:

Your colleague up there said this, you should be asking him or her that question. Or did they lie about what the Bible said?


This was what your colleague also said. Are they lying? If the Christian god can respect people's choice to enslave other people, then he can also respect people's choice to rape and kill.
Abi no be so?
Lol, I'm loving the contradictions.

In the Christian faith, we believe that God talks to and listens to everybody. We may not know how many people the people of Sodom and Gomorrah raped and killed, but we know it was a lot because it seemed to be the norm in the city.

Now if the family members of the people who were raped and killed asks God to take care of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, whose request do you think God will answer?

And also, the fact that they could rape and kill means God respected their decision to do so, but they could not hide from the resentment of God know how many people. Majority of the people in the area wished them dead and it was allowed by God.

I see no contradiction, do you?

Namdio:

Link me to this bible verse please, let me also know what you know.

Exodus 10:16-17 shows he was remorseful and acknowledged he had sinned, only for his heart to be hardened, yet again.
Exodus 10:1 shows the Christian god hardened his heart on purpose so he could have a reason to flex his muscles.

So what problem do you have with what God did?

lol, where did I mention that I have a problem with it?
The person who quoted me said this:

The bible says that whatever Man allows on earth will be allowed in heaven. If man chooses violence on earth, God won't object.

So I brought up the Sodom and Gomorrah case.
Maybe if you had intelligently processed everything, you'd have known what you were making response to.

In the Christian faith, we believe that God talks to and listens to everybody. We may not know how many people the people of Sodom and Gomorrah raped and killed, but we know it was a lot because it seemed to be the norm in the city.

Now if the family members of the people who were raped and killed asks God to take care of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, whose request do you think God will answer?

And also, the fact that they could rape and kill means God respected their decision to do so, but they could not hide from the resentment of God know how many people. Majority of the people in the area wished them dead and it was allowed by God.

I see no contradiction, do you?

Lol, if he actually respected their decision he would give laws on how often people should be killed and raped just like how he gave rules on how slaves should behave. Or do you think those slaves did not pray to this god to be free? Instead of helping them gain their freedom he endorsed slavery by telling them how to be more obedient. Lmao.
Your colleague said if it's done on earth it'll be accepted in heaven. Their words not mine. So both of you are giving different points which are contradictory. Maybe take it up with him/her.